exploring the relationships among early maladaptive schemas

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Exploring the relationships among earlymaladaptive schemas, psychological mindednessand self-reported college adjustment

John J. Cecero1*, Mark Beitel2 and Tracy Prout11Fordham University, New York, USA2Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

Objectives. The primary aim of this research was to study the statistical effects ofpsychological mindedness (PM) upon the relationship between early maladaptiveschemas (EMS) and self-reported college adjustment.

Design. A cross-sectional design was employed to assess correlations among studyvariables and to assess the role of PM as moderator or mediator in the relationshipbetween EMS and adjustment.

Methods. Into this study, 264 undergraduate students were recruited in partialfulfilment of research requirements in introductory psychology class. Participantscompleted the Young Schema Questionnaire, the Psychological Mindedness Scale andthe Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire.

Results. At the level of bivariate correlations, EMS were inversely associated withcollege adjustment and with PM, and PM was positively associated with adjustment. In amultiple regression equation with PM and EMS entered separately and then as aninteraction term as predictors of adjustment, PM was not a significant moderator.However, in a path analysis, the indirect effect of EMS on adjustment through PM wassignificant, suggesting that PM is a significant mediator.

Conclusions. These findings suggest that the assessment of EMS and PM mayenhance an understanding of problems with college adjustment and that interventionsto reduce the negative effects of EMS may indeed benefit from efforts to improve PMand its correlates.

Early maladaptive schemas (EMS) have been defined as ‘broad, pervasivethemes : : : regarding oneself and one’s relationships with others, which are developed

during childhood or adolescence, elaborated throughout one’s lifetime, and

dysfunctional to a significant degree’ (Young, Klosko, & Weishar, 2003, p. 7). Empirical

studies have supported a pattern of positive relationships between EMS and psychiatric

* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr John J. Cecero, Department of Psychology, Fordham University, 113 West 60thStreet, New York, NY 10023, USA (e-mail: [email protected]).

TheBritishPsychologicalSociety

105

Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice (2008), 81, 105–118

q 2008 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

DOI:10.1348/147608307X216177


disorders (Carine, 1997; Harris & Curtin, 2002), substance abuse (Ball & Cecero, 2001;

Brotchie, Meyer, Copello, Kidney, & Waller, 2004), obesity (Anderson, Rieger, &

Caterson, 2006) and other eating disorders (Leung & Price, 2007), and difficulties with

mood and college adjustment (D’Andrea, 2004).

Young et al. have identified 18 EMS and categorized them into five broad domains,

with each domain originating in the frustration of a core developmental need. TheDisconnection/Rejection domain comprises five EMS that originate in the frustration of

basic needs for safety, security and emotional nurturance. These five EMS, theoretically

the most associated with emotional distress and problematic interpersonal relationships

(Young et al., 2003), include Abandonment, which is the persistent fear and

expectation that significant others will inevitably leave one, often in preference to

others who are more attractive; Mistrust/Abuse, which is the expectation that

significant others will be abusive, humiliating, or manipulative; Emotional Deprivation,

which is the expectation that significant others will never meet one’s needs foremotional nurturance, empathy, or guidance; Defectiveness/Shame, which is a

persistent sense of being defective, inferior or unlovable and Social Isolation/Aliena-

tion, which is the feeling of isolation from the rest of the world. As these EMS are

theoretically and empirically most associated with mental health problems, including

insecure attachment styles (Cecero, Nelson, & Gillie, 2004) and heightened psychiatric

distress (Welburn, Coristine, Dagg, Pontefract, & Jordan, 2002) in both clinical and non-

clinical samples, we anticipated that they would be most associated in our sample with

poor college adjustment. We selected college adjustment as it arguably represents amore ecologically valid measure of psychological well-being that is specific to college

students.

Baker and Siryk (1984) conceptualized college adjustment as a multidimensional

construct emphasizing the variety of demands placed on students. These include

academic, social, personal and emotional adjustment, as well as adjustment to the

institution itself. For the more than 15.9 million college students in the United States

(U.S. Census, 2004), adjustment to college is an important variable in retention,

academic performance and future achievement. Using their Student Adjustment toCollege Questionnaire (SACQ; 1989), Baker and Siryk have demonstrated that among US

students in their first year of university study, Academic Adjustment is significantly

correlated with GPA, rð250Þ ¼ :40, p , :01, and poor personal/emotional adjustment is

predictive of being seen for psychological counselling, rð250Þ ¼ :26, p , :01. In a more

recent study with 107 first-year college students, Taylor and Pastor (2005) have reported

a pattern of negative point biserial correlations between the subscales of the Student

Adjustment to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1989) with attrition (Social

Adjustment, r ¼ 2:38; personal/emotional adjustment, r ¼ 2:16; institutional attach-ment, r ¼ 2:37), where the non-dropouts have higher values on the adjustment

predictors than the dropouts. In a European sample of first-year university students,

Beyers & Goosens (2002) also demonstrated evidence for the predictive validity of the

SACQ. In their study with 368 students in psychology in Belgium, these researchers

found that overall adjustment to college was associated with higher levels of academic

motivation, r ¼ :42, p , :001, lower levels of loneliness, r ¼ 2:55, p , :001, fewer

depressive symptoms, r ¼ 2:68, p , :001 and a higher level of general adjustment,

r ¼ :86, p , :001.While there is a burgeoning empirical literature to support an inverse relationship

between EMS and adjustment among college students, there remains a clinical

need to identify constructs that might potentially attenuate the magnitude of these

106 John J Cecero et al.


relationships. One such construct worthy of attention is psychological mindedness

(PM). Trudeau and Reich (1995) reported that PM was associated with general

psychological well-being among college students, such that as PM increased in their

sample, participants’ level of subjective well-being likewise increased, and negative self-

consciousness decreased.

In contrast to the negative associations with EMS, PM has been described as a healthypersonality construct (Beitel & Cecero, 2003) that involves an interest in and an

awareness of mental life in self and others (Beitel, Blauvelt, Barry, & Cecero, 2005). PM

was initially employed by psychodynamic therapists to describe the capacity of patients

to think in psychological terms, that is to make psychological attributions for behaviour.

More recent formulations of PM emphasize its strong cognitive component (Beitel,

Ferrer, & Cecero, 2004) and liken it to constructs such as metacognition (Grant, 2001)

and mentalization (Allen & Fonagy, 2006). Based upon a synthesis of previous work in

the area (Appelbaum, 1973; Farber, 1985), Conte, Ratto, and Karasu (1996) define PM as‘an attribute of an individual that presupposes a degree of access to one’s feelings, a

willingness to try to understand oneself and others, a belief in the benefits of discussing

one’s problems, an interest in the meaning and motivation of one’s own and others’

thoughts, feelings, behavior, and a capacity for change’ (p. 258).

To assess these dimensions of human experience, Conte et al. (1996) designed a

reliable and valid self-report measure of PM. PM has also been assessed through clinical

interview (Coltart, 1988), projective test data (Wolitzky & Reuben, 1974) and by means

of a standardized video stimulus paradigm (McCallum & Piper, 1990). However, theConte et al.’s definition and assessment methods are followed in this paper as they are

straightforward, easy to work with, and amenable for use in a variety of traditions,

including those with interests in cognitive–behavioural therapy, as well as social

cognition more generally.

PM has been empirically associated with a number of constructs that are on the

opposite (healthy) side of the correlates of EMS. More specifically, among college

undergraduates, while PM has been associated with a secure attachment to peers (Beitel

& Cecero, 2003), EMS have been associated with insecure attachments styles:Abandonment with the preoccupied style; Social Isolation and Emotional

Deprivation with the dismissing attachment style and Mistrust/Abuse with the fearful

style of interpersonal relating (Cecero et al., 2004). These findings were replicated with

another undergraduate sample in a more recent study that examined the relationship

between EMS and maternal and paternal attachments (Blissett, Walsh, Harris, Jones,

Leung, & Meyer, 2006). These authors also found that the Disconnection/Rejection EMS

were most predictive of problematic attachment styles. In a study of EMS and adult

attachment in a clinical sample of individuals seeking mental health services (Mason,Platts, & Tyson, 2005), the authors found that Abandonment, Emotional Deprivation

and Self-Sacrifice predicted the preoccupied style; and Mistrust/Abuse, Social

Isolation, Defectiveness/Shame and Emotional Inhibition predicted the fearful style.

Beitel et al. (2004) have also demonstrated that PM is associated with a flexible

cognitive style that is characterized by ambiguity tolerance and an internal locus of

control. By their very characterization as rigid, inflexible and highly resistant to change

(Young et al., 2003), EMS may be differentiated from the more flexible cognitive style

associated with PM. Whereas EMS are the objects of cognitive therapeutic intervention,PM is considered a therapeutic resource (McCallum, Piper, & Joyce, 1992).

Most recently, PM has been associated with increased mindfulness and reduced

personal distress (Beitel, Ferrer, & Cecero, 2005) once again in a sample of college

Early maladaptive schemas and adjustment 107


undergraduates. Mindfulness has been described as an emotional awareness or attention

to one’s own emotional states (Ryan & Brown, 2003), and in their study, Beitel, Ferrer,

and Cecero conjecture that the heightened emotional awareness associated with PM

may serve as a protective factor against personal distress. EMS, on the other hand, while

also associated with a heightened awareness of emotional states, are by definition

associated positively with personal distress (Young et al., 2003). In addition to a factoranalysis of the Young Schema Questionnaire-Short form (YSQ-S; Young, 1998) that was

used in the present study, Welburn et al. (2002) compared scores on the YSQ-S to

psychiatric symptomatology as measured by scores on the Brief Symptom Inventory

(BSI; Derogatis, 1993) in a sample of psychiatric day treatment patients. These

researchers reported a pattern of positive relationships between EMS and psychiatric

distress, and they noted especially that Abandonment was a salient predictor of

depression and anxiety, while Mistrust/Abuse was the best predictor of paranoia.

The central aim of this study was to investigate the relationships among EMS, PM andcollege adjustment (D’Andrea, 2004). More specifically, we expected that those

participants who endorsed the presence of EMS and who were at the same time more

psychologically minded would experience less severe maladjustment, and conversely

that those with EMS who were less psychologically minded would acknowledge a

greater degree of emotional distress and maladjustment.

Methods

ParticipantsIn this study, 264 undergraduate students participated as part of a research requirement

in an introductory psychology class. Out of these, 186 (70%) were females and 78 (30%)

males. The age range for the participants was 18–22 years. Out of these, 40%

were freshman, 44% were sophomores, 10% were juniors and 6% were seniors. Theethnic breakdown of the participants was as follows: 72.3% were Caucasian, 10.7%

Latino, 6.1% Asian American, 1.9% African-American and 9% described themselves as

‘Other’.

In exchange for their participation, volunteers received course credit. Students who

chose not to participate were able to write a paper instead. Informed consent was

obtained and participants were debriefed verbally and in writing at the conclusion of the

study. The instruments were presented in a fully counterbalanced order.

InstrumentsThe Young Schema Questionnaire-Short form (YSQ-S; Young, 1998) is a 75-item self-

report questionnaire designed to measure 15 EMS. The items are grouped into 15

subscales, each consisting of 5 items intended to measure a specific EMS. For the

purposes of this study, the authors focused on the five subscales within the

Disconnection/Rejection domain. Individuals were asked to respond to statements

using a six-point Likert scale ranging from completely untrue of me to describes me

perfectly. For example, one item that describes the Abandonment schema within this

Disconnection/Rejection domain is ‘I find myself clinging to people I’m close to

because I’m afraid they’ll leave me’. Higher scores reflect the respondent’s greater

endorsement of a particular EMS.

Preliminary evidence for the reliability of the items was first provided by Schmidt,

Joiner, Young, and Telch (1995) who evaluated the original 205-item Young Schema



Questionnaire-Long version (YSQ-L; Young & Brown, 1994) and reported alpha values

ranging from .86 to .96. Schmidt et al. found that the instrument had a factor structure

that reflected Young’s clinical observations. In response to this study, Young (1998)

produced a shorter, 75-item version of the questionnaire, the YSQ-S, with 15 scales, with

each scale consisting of 5 items from the original scale, namely the 5 items that loaded

most strongly on each factor in the Schmidt et al. analysis.In a sample of bulimic and comparison women, Waller, Meyer, and Ohanian (2001)

evaluated the psychometric properties of both the YSQ-L and the YSQ-S, and these

authors reported adequate reliability for the scales, with alpha levels greater than .80

for each group on each of the scales. Stopa, Thorne, Waters, and Preston (2001)

compared the validity of the YSQ-L and YSQ-S as predictors of psychopathology

among psychiatric out-patients, and they found that the two versions of the YSQ have

similar levels of internal consistency, parallel forms reliability and concurrent

validity. Welburn et al. (2002) examined the psychometric properties of the YSQ-S ina psychiatric out-patient sample, and their factor analysis supported the 15 EMS

subscales proposed by Young. These authors also found a high internal consistency

for the 15 subscales. With a multi-site sample of psychiatric patients and non-patients,

a confirmatory factor analysis of the YSQ-S supported all 15 EMS factors and four

higher-order factor domains, including Disconnection/Rejection, Impaired Autonomy,

Exaggerated Standards and Impaired Limits (Hoffart et al., 2005).

In a non-clinical, mainly undergraduate sample, Lachenal-Chevallet, Mauchand,

Cottraux, Bouvard, and Martin (2006) examined the psychometric properties of theFrench version of the YSQ-S, and their factor analysis supported 14 interpretable factors,

each with moderate to good internal consistency, ranging from .64 to .87. Thirteen of

these factors corresponded exactly to those hypothesized by Young, all except

Entitlement and Impaired Limits. A second factor analysis of the YSQ-S with

undergraduate students replicated these findings in Korea and Australia (Baranoff, Oei,

Ho Cho, & Kwon, 2006) and revealed a 13-factor solution with a high level of internal

consistency for each factor.

The Psychological Mindedness Scale (PMS; Conte et al., 1996) is a 45-item self-report measure designed to assess PM. Individuals were asked to rate statements on a

four-point Likert scale that ranges from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Higher

scores indicate a greater level of PM, as items are summed to create a total score. The PM

Scale has items that tap (1) Belief in the Benefits of Discussing One’s Problems, for

example ‘Talking about your worries to another person helps you to understand your

problems better’; (2) Access to Feelings, for example ‘Usually, if I feel an emotion, I can

identify it’; (3) Willingness to Discuss Problems with Others, for example ‘There are

some things in my life that I would not discuss with anyone (R)’; (4) Interest in Meaning

andMotivation : : : of Behavior, for example ‘I really enjoy trying to figure other people

out’ and (5) Openness to Change, for example ‘I am willing to change old habits to try a

new way of doing things’. See Shill and Lumley (2002) for the complete item set and

scoring instructions.

The PM Scale has demonstrated good temporal stability (rð20Þ ¼ :92) and internal

consistency (a ¼ :87). While factor analytic studies (Conte et al., 1996; Shill & Lumley,

2002) have revealed a number of factors for the scale, their reliability estimates have

been moderate to low (Beitel et al., 2004). Therefore, more research into the factorstructure is required before any subscales should be widely adopted (Beitel, Hopper,

Cecero, Zhou, & Barry, 2007).



The Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1989) is a

67-item self-report measure designed to assess four aspects of students’ adjustment to

college: Academic Adjustment (24 items; alpha ¼ :84) assesses the student’s ability to

manage the educational demands of college; Social Adjustment (20 items; alpha ¼ :84)measures the students ability to deal with interpersonal experiences in college;

Personal-Emotional Adjustment (15 items; alpha ¼ :81) measures the student’s degreeof general psychological distress and Institutional Attachment (15 items; alpha ¼ :80)assesses the degree of commitment the student feels towards the university. Some of the

items are included in more than one subscale, for example ‘I am satisfied with the

number and variety of courses available at college’ appears on both the Academic

Adjustment and Institutional Attachment subscales. The SACQ also yields a full-scale

score (67 items; alpha ¼ :92) representative of the overall adjustment to college.

Responses are given on a nine-point Likert scale, ranging from not at all true of me to

very much true of me.Virtually all published studies of the SACQ involve students in North American

colleges and universities, supporting its use with this study sample. Research

conducted on the concurrent and predictive validity of the SACQ has demonstrated

its robustness as a measure of college adjustment. Overall scores on the SACQ were

inversely correlated with the College Maladjustment scale (Mt) on the MMPI-2

(r ¼ 2:67, p , :001; Merker & Smith, 2001). From their review of studies that used

the SACQ, Sue, Bernardin, and Bernardin (1992) reported that subscale scores on

Personal-Emotional Adjustment were negatively associated with seeking psychologicalservices on campus (r values ranging from 2 .23 to 2 .34, all p values , :01), andsubscale scores on Institutional Attachment were inversely associated with college

attrition (r values ranging from 2 .27 to 2 .41, all p values , :01). These authors also

reported coefficient alpha values for the 67-item version of the SACQ ranging from

.81 to .90 for the Academic Adjustment subscale, from .83 to .91 for the Social

Adjustment subscale, from .77 to .86 for the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale,

from .85 to .91 for the Institutional Attachment subscale and from .92 to .95 for Full

Scale College Adjustment. These estimates confirm previous psychometric findingsthat support the internal consistency of this instrument across several independent

studies (Baker & Siryk, 1989).

Results

Descriptive statistics for the study variables are presented in Table 1. Means and

standard deviations for each scale (YSQ-S, PM, SACQ) were in line with findings fromprevious research (Baker & Siryk, 1984; Conte et al., 1996; Young, 1998). The

coefficient alpha for each scale exceeded Nunally’s (1978) recommended cutoff of .70,

demonstrating adequate to good internal consistency for each scale. Therefore, it

appears that each scale functioned as expected.

Demographic variables were examined to determine the extent of their influence

on the study variables. A series of independent samples t tests failed to reveal any

statistically significant sex differences on PM, EMS and Adjustment variables. To

reduce the increased risk of Type 1 error associated with running multiple tests,a Bonferonni correction was invoked and, consequently, the more stringent alpha

level of .001 was used. The only variable that was close was Academic Adjust-

ment (t ¼ 2:79, p , :01), with women reporting higher Academic Adjustment

(M ¼ 139:45, SD ¼ 28:22) than men (M ¼ 129:24, SD ¼ 27:00), a trend that has



been observed elsewhere (Hutz, Martin, & Beitel, 2007). Pearson Product–Moment

correlations failed to reveal significant relationships among study variables and

participant age (with the exception of Social Adjustment, which was negatively

associated with age, r ¼ 2:13, p , :05). This finding should be interpreted

cautiously, however, given that the sample was of college age. There were too few

non-White participants in this sample to test the effects of ethnicity on the study

variables.

Pearson Product–Moment correlations were employed to examine relationshipsamong study variables. All of the EMS and college adjustment domains were significantly,

inversely correlated (see Table 2).

PM was significantly and negatively associated with EMS (see Table 3). In contrast,PM was significantly and positively associated with each domain of college adjustment

(see Table 4).

Following Aiken and West (1991), the moderating role of PM was tested with a

simultaneous-entry multiple regression equation with interaction terms (see Table 5).

After centring, the total EMS score, PM and the interaction term were entered

simultaneously. The interaction term was not significant, suggesting that PM does not

moderate the relationship between EMS and Adjustment.

Table 1. Scale descriptive statistics

Scale M SD A

Early maladaptive schemasAbandonment 10.50 5.10 .86Mistrust/abuse 11.90 5.30 .85Defectiveness/shame 7.90 3.84 .84Social isolation 10.60 7.80 .82Emotional deprivation 9.20 4.50 .79EMS total score 50.10 18.30 .96

Psychological mindednessPM Scale total score 135.30 12.30 .86

Adjustment to collegeAcademic adjustment 136.40 28.20 .88Social adjustment 121.00 27.00 .87Personal/emotional adjustment 79.10 18.20 .78Attachment to the institution 99.80 20.20 .77Adjustment to college total score 436.30 75.80 .93

Table 2. Correlations among EMS and adjustment domains

EMS Academic Social Personal/emotional Attachment to institution

Abandonment 2 .28* 2 .27* 2 .45* 2 .25*Mistrust/abuse 2 .33* 2 .32* 2 .45* 2 .33*Defectiveness/shame 2 .29* 2 .28* 2 .34* 2 .28*Social isolation 2 .23* 2 .41* 2 .31* 2 .36*Emotional deprivation 2 .21* 2 .27* 2 .29* 2 .24*

*p , :01.



The mediating role of PM (on the relationship between EMS and Adjustment) was

examined through path analysis (LISREL 8.0). The EMS and Adjustment total scores

were used (rather than the individual subscales) in the analysis for parsimony. A path

analytic strategy was invoked for efficiency, i.e. to test all of the paths at once. The

direct effect of EMS on Adjustment was significant and negative, as was the directeffect of EMS on PM (see Figure 1). Strongly suggesting evidence of mediation, the

indirect effect of EMS on Adjustment (through PM) was significant by the Sobel Test

of mediation (22.41, p , :01).

Discussion

The primary aim of this research was to study the statistical effects of psychological

mindedness (PM) upon the relationship between early maladaptive schemas (EMS) and

Table 3. Correlations among PM and EMS

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. PM –2. Abandonment 2 .11 –3. Mistrust/abuse 2 .27* .67* –4. Defectiveness/shame 2 .36* .54* .58* –5. Social isolation 2 .24* .41** .48* .59* –6. Emotional deprivation 2 .29* .45* .41* .48* .46* –7. EMS total 2 .32* .80** .82** .80** .75* .71* –

*p , :05; **p , :01.

Table 4. Correlations among PM and adjustment domains

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. PM –2. Academic .22* –3. Personal .28* .42* –4. Social .19* .55* .41* –5. Attachment .25* .54* .85** .45* –6. Adjustment total .29* .80** .84** .71* .88** –

*p , :05; **p , :01.

Table 5. PM as a moderator of the relationship between EMS and adjustment

Variable b SE t

EMS 2 .439 .24 7.60**PM .154 .35 2.70***EMS * PM .009 .02 0.17

Note. Simultaneous-entry multiple regression, with IVs centred for the analysis. Overall equation,R 2 ¼ :26, p , :001.

**p , :001; ***p , :01.



self-reported college adjustment. Consistent with study hypotheses and previous

research with an undergraduate sample (D’Andrea, 2004), these EMS were associatedwith poor self-reported college adjustment in all four adjustment-to-college domains.

As hypothesized, PM was inversely associated with each of the EMS, although the

relationship of PM and Abandonment did not reach significance. This latter finding is

consistent with previous research that identified the heightened social cognition related

to PM as positively associated with borderline personality disorder (Westen, Lohr, Silk,

Gold, & Kerber, 1990), which may be understood as an extreme expression of the

Abandonment schema.

Again as hypothesized and consistent with previous findings (Trudeau & Reich,1995), PM was positively associated with each of the domains of college adjustment,

thereby supporting its selection in this study as a potential moderator or mediator in the

relationship between EMS and college adjustment.

The first way in which we suspected that PM might relate to EMS and college

adjustment was interactively, whereby at higher levels of PM the relationship between

EMS and college adjustment would be weaker than at lower levels. The results, however,

did not support this moderator hypothesis.

The second way that we hypothesized PM might influence the relationship betweenEMS and college adjustment was as a mediator, whereby the construct of PM might in

part account for the relationship between EMS and adjustment. Study findings support

this hypothesis, as evidenced by the significant indirect paths of EMS on college

adjustment through PM. Based on these findings, it appears that psychological

mindedness may in part explain the inverse relationship between EMS (specifically

Mistrust/Abuse and Social Isolation/Alienation) and college adjustment.

Alvarez, Farber, and Schonbar (1998) found that, contrary to conjectures that PM

may be developmentally associated with inconsistent parenting (McCallum & Piper,1997), where high PM individuals are trying to make sense out of an environment that

lacks reliable contingencies, it was instead negatively correlated among college students

with perceptions of early maternal rejection. This association of PM and good enough

parenting may account for its inverse relationships with EMS and positive correlations

with secure attachment, flexible cognitive style, heightened mindfulness and

adjustment to college.

These results not only support Young et al.’s (2003) assertion that EMS contribute to

poor adjustment, but they also potentially elucidate how EMS may exert this influence,namely through PM. Moreover, it may be that the correlates of PM – secure attachment,

Figure 1. Direct and indirect effects of EMS upon adjustment.



flexible cognitive style and heightened mindfulness – are also potential mediators

and/or moderators, suggesting their inclusion, along with PM, in future EMS research.

LimitationsSeveral features of this particular study limit our understanding of the findings in terms

of their internal and external validity. First of all, the study data were generated by self-

report, precluding corroboration by an objective observer and therefore may contain a

degree of bias. A methodologically related point is that the mono-method of assessmentmight have inflated the correlations among study variables to some extent. The second

design feature of interest is that the study is correlational rather than experimental.

While correlational designs have certain advantages, internal validity concerns are well

established. For example, it may be that there are alternate constructs, besides PM, that

may account for the observed relationship between EMS and adjustment, such as mood,

personality or coping style. The present study did not include these or other such

variables as controls, and this shortcoming precludes the more confident assertion that

PM does indeed account for the relationship between PM and adjustment. Thirdly, thecross-sectional design of this study does not permit definitive causal inferences about

the direction of the relationship between EMS and adjustment. In other words,

adjustment could be a predictor of EMS just as well as the other way around as

hypothesized in this study. However, the theoretical origins of EMS (Young et al., 2003)

are developmentally prior to later experiences of insecure attachment, difficulties with

mood and poor adjustment, and this study relies on this theory to guide its

interpretation of these findings, while at the same time acknowledging this limitation.

In terms of external validity or generalizabililty, there are likewise some notablelimitations. This study is limited by its participants, who were homogenous in terms of

age and ethnicity. Moreover, the correlations were in the small to medium range, and

although statistically significant in these analyses, these effect sizes suggest that robust

conclusions may be premature at this point.

As a result of these limitations and their threats to internal and external validity, the

present findings must be understood as providing promising preliminary, albeit not

definitive, support to study hypotheses.

Clinical and research implicationsThese findings suggest that the assessment of college adjustment may be improved by

adding measures of early maladaptive schemas and psychological mindedness to thetesting battery. In addition, therapeutic interventions designed to improve college

adjustment might profitably focus on reducing the influence of early maladaptive

schemas (Young et al., 2003) and increasing psychological mindedness. Young et al.

have outlined a number of comprehensive strategies in Schema Therapy to combat EMS,

including the use of cognitive, behavioural, experiential and therapy relationship

techniques. However, it might be argued that the effective implementation of these

therapeutic techniques relies in some measure on the psychological mindedness of the

client, that is, on his or her ability ‘ : : : to reflect upon the meaning and motivation of thebehaviors, thoughts, and feelings of oneself and others’ (Farber, 1985, p. 170).

Clinical and research experience (Conte et al., 1996; McCallum, Piper, Ogrodniczuk,

& Joyce, 2003; Piper, McCallum, Joyce, Rosie, & Ogrodniczuk, 2001) indicate that PM

has direct effects on psychotherapy process and outcome in both supportive and



expressive treatment modalities. Therefore, therapists who practise out of diverse

theoretical orientations are urged to engage their patients’ PM in the service of

treatment. Excellent examples of this are presented in a recent handbook (Allen &

Fonagy, 2006) on treatment approaches which are designed to increase mentalization

(a conceptual sibling of PM) through psycho-education (Tobias, Haslam-Hopwood,

Allen, Stein, & Bleiberg, 2006), psychotherapy (Bateman & Fonagy, 2006; Fearon et al.,2006) and in-patient treatment (Bleiberg, 2006). Rationales for the utility of the

construct in behavioural (Lewis, 2006) and cognitive therapy (Bjorgvinsson & Hart,

2006) are also presented.

Future studies are needed to elaborate upon these findings, specifically to determine

which correlates of PM may be more or less explanatory in the relationship between

EMS and adjustment. Towards this end, future studies might take a multi-trait, multi-

method approach to assess these relationships, including measures of attachment,

cognitive style and mindfulness with those used in this study. For example, thePsychological Mindedness Assessment Procedure (McCallum & Piper, 1990) or the

Adult Attachment Interview (Main & Goldwyn, 1985) might be employed. Experimental

design features might also be incorporated in future studies, and a longitudinal design

that follows students as they progress through college would also be an important future

project. Finally, the investigation of the mediating effects of PM in the relationship

between early maladaptive schemas and adjustment in diverse samples (general

population or clinical samples) is recommended.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Allen, J., & Fonagy, P. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of mentalization-based treatment. West Sussex:

Wiley.

Alvarez, J. R., Farber, B. A., & Schonbar, R. A. (1998). The relationship of psychological mindedness

to adult perceptions of early parental rejection. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(8),

1079–1084.

Anderson, K., Rieger, E., & Caterson, I. (2006). A comparison of maladaptive schemata in

treatment-seeking obese adults and normal-weight control subjects. Journal of Psychosomatic

Research, 60(3), 245–252.

Appelbaum, S. (1973). Psychological mindedness: Word, concept, and essence. International

Journal of Psychoanalysis, 54(1), 35–46.

Baker, R., & Siryk, B. (1984). Measuring adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

31(2), 179–189.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1989). Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ): Manual.

Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Ball, S. A., & Cecero, J. J. (2001). Addicted patients with personality disorders: Traits, schemas, and

presenting problems. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15(1), 72–83.

Baranoff, J., Oei, T., Ho Cho, S., & Kwon, S. M. (2006). Factor structure and internal consistency of

the Young Schema Questionnaire (Short Form) in Korean and Australian samples. Journal of

Affective Disorders, 93(1–3), 133–140.

Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2006). Mentalizing and Borderline Personality Disorder. In J. Allen &

P. Fonagy (Eds.), Handbook of mentalization-based treatment (pp. 185–200). West Sussex:

Wiley.

Beitel, M., Blauvelt, K. S., Barry, D. T., & Cecero, J. J. (2005). The structure of psychological

mindedness. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 53, 1301–1305.



Beitel, M., & Cecero, J. (2003). Predicting psychological mindedness from personality style and

attachment security. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 163–172.

Beitel, M., Ferrer, E., & Cecero, J. (2004). Psychological mindedness and cognitive style. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 567–582.

Beitel, M., Ferrer, E., & Cecero, J. (2005). Psychological mindedness and awareness of self and

others. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 739–750.

Beitel, M., Hopper, K., Cecero, J. J., Zhou, Y., & Barry, D. (2007). Factor and item analyses of the

Psychological Mindedness Scale. Unpublished Manuscript.

Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2002). Concurrent and predictive validity of the Student Adaptation to

College Questionnaire in a sample of European freshman students. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 62, 527–538.

Bjorgvinsson, T., & Hart, H. (2006). Cognitive behavioral therapy promotes mentalizing. In J. Allen

& P. Fonagy (Eds.), Handbook of mentalization-based treatment (pp. 157–170). West Sussex:

Wiley.

Bleiberg, E. (2006). Treating professionals in crisis: A mentalization-based specialized inpatient

program. In J. Allen & P. Fonagy (Eds.), Handbook of mentalization-based treatment

(pp.233–248). West Sussex: Wiley.

Blissett, J., Walsh, J., Harris, G., Jones, C., Leung, N., & Meyer, C. (2006). Different core beliefs

predict paternal and maternal attachment representations in young women. Clinical

Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 163–171.

Brotchie, J., Meyer, C., Copello, A., Kidney, R., & Waller, G. (2004). Cognitive representations in

alcohol and opiate abuse: The role of core beliefs. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,

43(3), 337–342.

Carine, B. E. (1997). Assessing personal and interpersonal schemata associated with Axis II cluster

B personality disorders: An integrated perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International:

Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58(1-B), 0410.

Cecero, J., Nelson, J., & Gillie, J. (2004). Tools and tenets of schema therapy: Toward the construct

validity of the Early Maladaptive Schema Questionnaire-Research Version (EMSQ-R). Clinical

Psychology and Psychotherapy, 11(5), 344–357.

Coltart, N. (1988). The assessment of psychological mindedness in the diagnostic interview.

British Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 819–820.

Conte, H. R., Ratto, R., & Karasu, T. B. (1996). The Psychological Mindedness Scale. Journal of

Psychotherapy Research and Practice, 5, 250–259.

D’Andrea, J. T. (2004). An investigation of the relationship between early maladaptive schemas and

psychological adjustment: The moderating effects of spiritual coping styles. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64(7-B), 3517.

Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring and procedures

manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Farber, B. (1985). The genesis, development, and implications of psychological mindedness in

psychotherapists. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 22(2), 170–177.

Fearon, P., Target, M., Sargent, J., Williams, L., McGregor, J., Bleiberg, E., et al. (2006). Short-Term

Mentalization and Relational Therapy (SMART): An integrative family therapy for children and

adolescents. In J. Allen & P. Fonagy (Eds.), Handbook of mentalization-based treatment (pp.

201–222). West Sussex: Wiley.

Grant, A. M. (2001). Rethinking psychological mindedness: Metacognition, self-reflection, and

insight. Behaviour Change, 18, 8–17.

Harris, A., & Curtin, L. (2002). Parental perceptions, early maladaptive schemas, and depressive

symptoms in young adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 405–416.

Hoffart, A., Sexton, H., Hedley, L., Wang, C., Holthe, H., Haugum, J., et al. (2005). The structure of

maladaptive schemas: A confirmatory factor analysis and a psychometric evaluation of factor-

derived scales. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29(6), 627–644.



Hutz, A., Martin, W. E., & Beitel, M. (in press). The relationship between ethnocultural person-

environment fit and adaptation to college: Important implications for college counselors.

Journal of College Counseling, 10, 130–141.

Lachenal-Chevalet, K., Mauchand, P., Cottraux, J., Bouvard, M., & Martin, R. (2006). Factor analysis

of the Schema Questionnaire-Short form in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Cognitive

Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 20(3), 311–318.

Leung, N., & Price, E. (2007). Core beliefs in dieters and eating disordered women. Eating

Behaviors, 8(1), 65–72.

Lewis, L. (2006). Enhancing mentalizing capacity through Dialectical Behavior Therapy skills

training and positive psychology. In J. Allen & P. Fonagy (Eds.), Handbook of mentalization-

based treatment (pp. 171–182). West Sussex: Wiley.

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1985). Adult attachment scoring and classification system.

Department of Psychology, Unpublished scoring manual, University of California, Berkeley.

Mason, O., Platts, H., & Tyson, M. (2005). Early maladaptive schemas and adult attachment in a UK

clinical population. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 78,

549–564.

McCallum, M., & Piper, W. (1990). The psychological mindedness assessment procedure.

Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 412–418.

McCallum, M., & Piper, W. (1997). Psychological mindedness: A contemporary understanding.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCallum, M., Piper, W., & Joyce, A. (1992). Dropping out from short term group therapy.

Psychotherapy, 29, 206–215.

McCallum, M., Piper, W., Ogrodniczuk, J., & Joyce, A. (2003). Relationships among psychological

mindedness, alexithymia and outcome in four forms of short-term psychotherapy. Psychology

and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 76, 133–144.

Merker, B. M., & Smith, J. V. (2001). Validity of the MMPI-2 College Maladjustment Scale. Journal of

College Counseling, 4, 3–9.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Piper, W., McCallum, M., Joyce, A., Rosie, J., & Ogrodniczuk, J. (2001). Patient personality and

time-limited group psychotherapy for complicated grief. International Journal of Group

Psychotherapy, 51, 525–552.

Ryan, R., & Brown, K. (2003). Why we don’t need self-esteem: On fundamental needs, contingent

love, and mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 71–76.

Schmidt, N. B., Joiner, T. E., Young, J., & Telch, M. J. (1995). The Schema Questionnaire:

Investigation of psychometric properties and the hierarchical structure of a measure of

maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 295–321.

Shill, M. A., & Lumley, M. A. (2002). The Psychological Mindedness Scale: Factor structure,

convergent validity and gender in a non-psychiatric sample. Psychology and Psychotherapy:

Theory, Research and Practice, 75, 131–150.

Stopa, L., Thorne, P., Waters, A., & Preston, J. (2001). Are the short and long forms of the Young

Schema Questionnaire comparable and how well does each version predict psychopathology

scores? Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 15(3), 253–272.

Sue, D., Bernardin, H. J., & Bernardin, K. (1992). Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire.

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 25, 13–142.

Taylor, M. A., & Pastor, D. A. (2005). Adjustment to college as a predictor of first-year retention.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Institutional Research. San Diego,

CA.

Tobias, G., Haslam-Hopwood, G., Allen, J., Stein, A., & Bleiberg, E. (2006). Enhancing mentalizing

through psycho-education. In J. Allen & P. Fonagy (Eds.), Handbook of mentalization-based

treatment. West Sussex: Wiley.

Trudeau, K., & Reich, R. (1995). Correlates of psychological mindedness. Personality and

Individual Differences, 19, 699–704.

U.S. Census (2004). Press release: Facts for features. CB04-FF.12, July 6, 2004.



Waller, G., Meyer, C., & Ohanian, V. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Long and Short

Versions of the Young Schema Questionnaire: Core beliefs among bulimic and comparison

women. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 137–147.

Welburn, K., Coristine, M., Dagg, P., Pontefract, A., & Jordan, S. (2002). The Schema Questionnaire

– Short Form: Factor analysis and relationship between schemas and symptoms. Cognitive

Therapy and Research, 26(4), 519–530.

Wolitzky, D. L., & Reuben, R. (1974). Psychological-mindedness. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

30, 26–30.

Westen, D., Lohr, N., Silk, K., Gold, L., & Kerber, K. (1990). Object relations and social cognition in

borderlines, major depressives, and normals: A TAT analysis. Psychological Assessment:

A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 355–364.

Young, J. E. (1998). Young Schema Questionnaire: Short form (1st ed.). New York: Cognitive

Therapy Center.

Young, J. E., & Brown, G. (1994). Young Schema Questionnaire. In J. E. Young (Ed.), Cognitive

Therapy for Personality Disorders: A Schema-Focused Approach (Rev. ed., pp. 63–76).

Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

Young, J. E., Klosko, J., &Weishaar, M. (2003). Schema Therapy: A practitioner’s guide. New York:

Guilford Press.

Received 4 August 2006; revised version received 17 May 2007


exploring the relationships among early maladaptive schemas

Documents